I'd like to propose a gun law.

[Remmah2]

If you're going to post, blog, write or journal about firearms then the article must be technically correct. Being vague, broad brushed or appealing to emotion would not be acceptable. Just the facts and only the facts. Generalizations and stereotyping would be considered discriminatory and firearms owners would be afforded the protections of other minority groups.

Plus as a bonus: They who cusses first loses the debate. Vulgarity does not reinforce logic.

What say ye?

[whoneedstickets]

1. Great idea!

So...

No more nonsense about how guns preserve our freedom from government? Clearly that's an unsubstantiated generalization.

[speltwon]

7. I think that's an error in reading comprehension

"technically correct" refers to stuff that is simply factual - like definitional stuff - assault rifle vs. assault weapon, etc. or other things that are inarguable because they are based on widely accepted, researchable definition, terminology or statistics.

Whether guns preserve our freedom from (tyrannical) govt. is political rhetoric. I happen to believe it's a good analysis, but it is neither technically correct, nor incorrect.

It's an opinion based on subjective analysis, and inductive reasoning, etc. It is not something that can or can't be "technically correct"

If an article says that John Smith went on a shooting rampage with an "assault rifle" and it turns out he used a semi-automatic AR-15, that would be an example of something that is inarguably technically incorrect.

If an article references 18 yr old freshmen carrying weapons on campus if we legalize campus CCW in a state, that would also be technically incorrect due to that state's requirement that ALL CCW's require one to be 21, etc.

There are inarguable fact based stuff like that, and there is rhetoric, opinion, and subjective stuff. Don't confuse the two

[Remmah2]

11. Trumped up nouns would be eliminated from newspapers:

"Cop killer bullets"

"Large caliber handgun"

"High capacity magazines"

"High velocity gun powder" (new 3/16/2011 EST 2200; Criminal Minds)The guy wiped his fingers through the residue and claimed the perp used "high velocity gun powder"). My wife hates when I catch gross technical errors. It is fiction but Hollywood routinely sends out anti-second amendment messages.)

"Pro-gun/anti-gun" it's pro-second amendment/anti-second amendment; equal to all the other amendments including the ones which eliminate discrimination and give freedom.

"Gun" it's not a gun it's a handgun, firearm, revolver, pistol, shotgun. Gun is vulgar and indicates the author does not care about complete research on the subject.

Peace be with you brother.

[whoneedstickets]

24. My error or yours?

Quoting the OP "Being vague, broad brushed or appealing to emotion would not be acceptable."

I don't think he was talking about mistaking centerfire from rimfire ammunition or calling cartridges bullets or calling semi-auto sporting versions of military rifles Assault weapons (though I think you're defining the term too narrowly since the a number of countries use semi-auto battle rifles -- like the L1A1 FAL).

Clearly he was talking about broad brushed emotional appeals to ideas like "threats to public safely" or "civilized society"

Your tyrannical government appeal is just as emotional and nonsensical as the liberal ones.

[speltwon]

26. How is that emotional and nonsensical

Is the idea of a govt. turning tyrannical emotional or nonsensical? Clearly no. Is the idea that a well armed citizenry can be an impediment to same? No

[gejohnston]

29. After eight years of Bush?

Not so sure about that.

[Taitertots]

51. 8 years of Bush ended with a ballot and not a bullet

Your opinion is nothing but a straw man argument that guns should have been used against Bush. Too bad NO ONE who supports gun rights here supported it. So the whole point is meaningless and does nothing but destroy any chance at reasonable and rational discourse.

[speltwon]

55. You don;'t understand the definition of strawman

it's not a strawman argument. If I was making up that argument to refute it after somebody made a different argument, THAT would be a strawman. I am not aware of anybody who said that bushco should be taken down by citizens with guns. And I was not responding to such an argument, and misstating, so as to knock it down via a strawman. Sorry, logical fallacy fail.

Regardless, yes - it is my OPINION that an armed citizenry is *a* check against tyrannical govt. It does not therefore follow that it will be effective in every case, that it will be used in every case, etc. It is merely A check of tyrannical govt, just like seperation of powers are, elections are, etc. None are foolproof

[cleanhippie]

2. Well, if that were required, the anti-2A side would not be able to post at all.

Your requirements take away their entire method of argument.

[razorman]

3. Does that mean that the press could no longer write about all those dangerous

powerful plastic, muzzle-loading, single-shot, semi-automatic assault weapons that only criminals use?

[DonP]

4. As long as we're at it, can we also drop ...

"Tote"
"Pack"
"Gat"
"Rod"

... and the rest of the awful script from a bad 1934 Edward G. Robinson movie from late night TV?

Fer cripes sake people it makes you sound like somebody's great grandfather.

[Hoyt]

6. So what euphemism do you suggest for walking around in public with a gun tucked away?

300 million in this country don't see the need for a gun in most public situations.

[Remmah2]

9. (Concealed carry).

It's also a privacy issue. Equal privacy for all citizens.

[Hoyt]

14. "Privacy?" That's funny. How about the right to stroll in a park without deadly weapons.

A "person" (euphemism to comply with the spirit of the thread), carrying a deadly weapon openly or concealed kind of ruins the peaceful day in the park, church, family restaurant, etc.

Leave em at home where one can play with em however they want.

[rrneck]

23. I don't mind fish in a barrel

but do you have to make them catfish?

[Remmah2]

27. I agree.

Let the muggers and rapist comply first.

BTW you don't have to carry a firearm to be a mugger or rapist either.

[Hoyt]

34. Privacy -- leave them at home where you caress, fondle, sleep with em for all anyone cares..

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Privacy. You don't know if I am carrying or not. I have the right to self-defense.

Why do you want to empower criminals?

[rl6214]

31. And YOU know, when I am strolling through the park

Whether I am carrying concealed or not?

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Doesn't bother me to be around armed people. Why are you so scared?

You are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally shot and killed by a CCW holder. You have your fears misplaced.

[BrookBrew]

41. Yep, for lots of people blacks, jews, hispanics, or gays

ruin their day. Should we really care what morons like that think?

[tortoise1956]

45. "Right"? Methinks thou knowest not what that word doth mean...

There is no "RIGHT" to stroll in a park without deadly weapons. There is, however, an individual right to keep and bear arms. That includes, at least in many states, the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Besides, if someone is carrying a concealed weapon, how does that ruin your peaceful day? By definition, concealed weapons shouldn't be seen. Thus, you go on your way in peaceful ignorance, enjoying that day in the park.

Have a nice day!

[X_Digger]

54. I'm sure it's the Robert Bork 'moral harm' principle in action..

As writer Dan Baum said in a recent Harper's article (August, 2010)..

.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

[Remmah2]

50. Crime was up "45%" in Central Park NYC last fall.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20101030/manhattan/central-park-crime-jumps-over-45-percent

That's a double whammy gun free zone.

[Taitertots]

52. That right doesn't exist

Support your assertion with legal backing or accept that it doesn't exist.

[Starboard Tack]

40. How about "HIDDEN"?

[DonP]

10. How about something snappy like "Concealed Carry" and ...

... I think a few of us would like to see some evidence supporting your contention that everyone in the USA that doesn't have a concealed carry permit agrees with you and is afraid of every permit holder.

Methinks you are spouting rhetoric out your ass on that subject, blended with some very wishful thinking based on nada. Do you really think anyone believes your phony, baloney "statistic"? Or are you just hoping that the Brady group will spot it and your hero Josh Sugarmann might possibly offer you a staff positions as "chief assistant liar"?

[Hoyt]

12. I don't think "concealed carry" gets to the issue of grown men playing cowboy with deadly weapons.

[Remmah2]

13. I rest my case.

"grown men playing cowboy with deadly weapons"

[Hoyt]

15. Until that law passes, I can post the truth.

[rrneck]

22. Let us know when you start. nt

[Starboard Tack]

38. Don't you know that around here the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st

How dare you not be up to date with the latest parabellum terminology. Shame on you. We want statistics, not opinions. And for God's sake don't accuse anyone of bullying. Your dealing with a very elite group of liberal democrats with libertarian tendencies.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

44. That too

[rl6214]

46. The truth?

Can you prove in any way, shape or fashion how you know that carrying concealed is like

"grown men playing cowboy with deadly weapons"

[DonP]

17. Well, on the other hand, there ain't shit you can do about it, is there?

It seems the pro second amendment side is just overwhelming the gun control movement. It must have hurt when the President agreed with Heller/McDonald that it's an individual right. Not only no sign of it letting up, every sign of it increasing, since the crime rate continues to drop and the oft predicted and longed for "blood baths" never seem to materialize.

Maybe your best bet is to just leave Ga and quickly move here to Illinois, settle in Cook County where they have no carry of any kind (except our crooked alderman and big campaign contributors that are "deputized") then, if you jump through all the hoops, you might even be able to keep your gun in your home, assuming it doesn't have a magazine over 10 rounds.

We even have an Assault Weapons Ban that makes the expired Federal ban look wimpy by comparison. It's the gun free Utopia you've longed for. I suggest a nice third floor walk up in Englewood, very affordable.

[Hoyt]

19. Sounds like some sensible laws there. Who -- besides Loughers -- need more than 10 rounds anyway?

Just goes to show there is something you can do about the 2nd Amendment besides you guys forgetting the part about "well regulated militias."

You must do alright without carrying in public.

[PavePusher]

25. Your crystal ball... do you have some proof of it's omniscience? n/t

[rl6214]

33. when you actually learn what "well regulated militias" means

Then maybe you will be taken seriously.

I will continue carrying in public, and you won't even know it.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. The U.S. does not have a Dept. of Needs, and you are not the Needs Czar. N/T

[X_Digger]

42. You need to send a letter to Obama. He thinks it's an individual right, too.

You've admitted this schtick is wrong recently, did you forget?

[rl6214]

47. You do know that Cho, the Va Tech shooter

fired 170 rounds and killed 32 people using nothing but 10 round magazines. 17 empty mags were found, all 10 rounders which means he reloaded 17 times. Ya think maybe if one of those students there had a concealed handgun, he might have been able to stop the massacre, maybe when he reloaded one of those 17 times?

[Remmah2]

56. Reloading irony.

That's exactly when they grabbed the shooter in Arizona, when he was reloading.

[rl6214]

57. With a disfunctional magazine

[rl6214]

32. And you have lots of evidence you can cite

that shows that grown men feel they are playing cowboy when carryiing concealed?

[RSillsbee]

18. CHP holders? NT

[Hoyt]

20. Sounds too much like a charitable organization. Carrying in public shouldn't be promoted/glamorized

[Starboard Tack]

39. Right on brother

It's like watching porn in black and white.

[Hoyt]

5. This is a political forum. "Facts" are only part of any issue.

Firearm owners do not deserve the same protection as people who have been denied access to schools, denied even applying for jobs, beaten on the streets, jailed when innocent, discriminated against in economic policy, called awful names, lynched, etc.

And those against firearms in public, and proliferation of guns marketed/manufactured/sold/coveted for their perceived destructive capabilities, don't deserve any protection either. We can take it.

[Remmah2]

8. Most excellent satire. nt

nt

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

48. "do not deserve"?

Who are YOU to determine what anyone deserves. Are you that much better than everyone else that you can determine what we deserve?

[VoteProgressive]

16. I am new here but way too much name calling on this forum. I alert both.....

"sheeple" posts and "gun nut" posts.

[spin]

28. Unfortunately that would eliminate most of the posts from those ...

who oppose firearms.

The gungeon would be as boring a a pro-gun forum.

[rl6214]

30. Not gonna work

I know one member here that will question you on who made you the cussing police.

[Callisto32]

49. Honestly...meh.

Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

[Taitertots]

53. Let them be incorrect, it just makes it easy to pick out the pathetically ignorant ones to ignoren/t